| Message ID | 20230525000307.3202449-1-namhyung@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | BPF |
| Headers | show |
| Series | perf bpf filter: Fix a broken perf sample data naming in BPF | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Not a local patch |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-1 | success | Logs for ShellCheck |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-6 | success | Logs for set-matrix |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-2 | success | Logs for build for aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-4 | success | Logs for build for x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-5 | success | Logs for build for x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-3 | success | Logs for build for s390x with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-9 | success | Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-10 | success | Logs for test_maps on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-19 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-20 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-21 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-22 | success | Logs for test_progs_parallel on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-23 | success | Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-24 | success | Logs for test_progs_parallel on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-25 | success | Logs for test_verifier on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-26 | success | Logs for test_verifier on s390x with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-27 | success | Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-28 | success | Logs for test_verifier on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-29 | success | Logs for veristat |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-7 | success | Logs for test_maps on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-11 | success | Logs for test_progs on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-13 | success | Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-14 | success | Logs for test_progs on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-15 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on aarch64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-17 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-18 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on x86_64 with llvm-16 |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-16 | success | Logs for test_progs_no_alu32 on s390x with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-12 | success | Logs for test_progs on s390x with gcc |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-PR | success | PR summary |
| bpf/vmtest-bpf-next-VM_Test-8 | success | Logs for test_maps on s390x with gcc |
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 5:03 PM Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> wrote: > > BPF CO-RE requires 3 underscores for the ignored suffix rule but it > mistakenly used only 2. Let's fix it. > > Fixes: 3a8b8fc31748 ("perf bpf filter: Support pre-5.16 kernels where 'mem_hops' isn't in 'union perf_mem_data_src'") > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > --- > tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > Seems like that's the only remaining case. LGTM. Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@kernel.org> > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > index cffe493af1ed..fb94f5280626 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct perf_sample_data___new { > } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > > /* new kernel perf_mem_data_src definition */ > -union perf_mem_data_src__new { > +union perf_mem_data_src___new { > __u64 val; > struct { > __u64 mem_op:5, /* type of opcode */ > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline __u64 perf_get_sample(struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *kctx, > if (entry->part == 7) > return kctx->data->data_src.mem_blk; > if (entry->part == 8) { > - union perf_mem_data_src__new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > + union perf_mem_data_src___new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > > if (bpf_core_field_exists(data->mem_hops)) > return data->mem_hops; > -- > 2.41.0.rc0.172.g3f132b7071-goog > >
Namhyung Kim wrote: > BPF CO-RE requires 3 underscores for the ignored suffix rule but it > mistakenly used only 2. Let's fix it. > > Fixes: 3a8b8fc31748 ("perf bpf filter: Support pre-5.16 kernels where 'mem_hops' isn't in 'union perf_mem_data_src'") > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > --- > tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > index cffe493af1ed..fb94f5280626 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct perf_sample_data___new { > } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > > /* new kernel perf_mem_data_src definition */ > -union perf_mem_data_src__new { > +union perf_mem_data_src___new { > __u64 val; > struct { > __u64 mem_op:5, /* type of opcode */ > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline __u64 perf_get_sample(struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *kctx, > if (entry->part == 7) > return kctx->data->data_src.mem_blk; > if (entry->part == 8) { > - union perf_mem_data_src__new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > + union perf_mem_data_src___new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > > if (bpf_core_field_exists(data->mem_hops)) > return data->mem_hops; > -- > 2.41.0.rc0.172.g3f132b7071-goog > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com>
Em Thu, May 25, 2023 at 11:53:09PM -0700, John Fastabend escreveu: > Namhyung Kim wrote: > > BPF CO-RE requires 3 underscores for the ignored suffix rule but it > > mistakenly used only 2. Let's fix it. > > > > Fixes: 3a8b8fc31748 ("perf bpf filter: Support pre-5.16 kernels where 'mem_hops' isn't in 'union perf_mem_data_src'") > > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> > > --- > > tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > > index cffe493af1ed..fb94f5280626 100644 > > --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > > +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c > > @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct perf_sample_data___new { > > } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); > > > > /* new kernel perf_mem_data_src definition */ > > -union perf_mem_data_src__new { > > +union perf_mem_data_src___new { > > __u64 val; > > struct { > > __u64 mem_op:5, /* type of opcode */ > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline __u64 perf_get_sample(struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *kctx, > > if (entry->part == 7) > > return kctx->data->data_src.mem_blk; > > if (entry->part == 8) { > > - union perf_mem_data_src__new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > > + union perf_mem_data_src___new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; > > > > if (bpf_core_field_exists(data->mem_hops)) > > return data->mem_hops; > > -- > > 2.41.0.rc0.172.g3f132b7071-goog > > > > > > Acked-by: John Fastabend <john.fastabend@gmail.com> Thanks, applied. - Arnaldo
diff --git a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c index cffe493af1ed..fb94f5280626 100644 --- a/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c +++ b/tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ struct perf_sample_data___new { } __attribute__((preserve_access_index)); /* new kernel perf_mem_data_src definition */ -union perf_mem_data_src__new { +union perf_mem_data_src___new { __u64 val; struct { __u64 mem_op:5, /* type of opcode */ @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static inline __u64 perf_get_sample(struct bpf_perf_event_data_kern *kctx, if (entry->part == 7) return kctx->data->data_src.mem_blk; if (entry->part == 8) { - union perf_mem_data_src__new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; + union perf_mem_data_src___new *data = (void *)&kctx->data->data_src; if (bpf_core_field_exists(data->mem_hops)) return data->mem_hops;
BPF CO-RE requires 3 underscores for the ignored suffix rule but it mistakenly used only 2. Let's fix it. Fixes: 3a8b8fc31748 ("perf bpf filter: Support pre-5.16 kernels where 'mem_hops' isn't in 'union perf_mem_data_src'") Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@kernel.org> --- tools/perf/util/bpf_skel/sample_filter.bpf.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)